Kalshi, a US-regulated prediction market platform, is preparing to seek approval for around 60 perpetual futures contracts (perps) on individual stocks and ETFs, including Tesla, Apple, and Nvidia. The project reignites a regulatory turf war between the CFTC and the SEC, as Wall Street pushes back against a crypto-style derivative product extending to US equities.
🔑 Key takeaways
- Kalshi plans roughly 60 perps on US stocks and ETFs, including Tesla, Apple, and Nvidia
- The contracts would trade 24/7, even when the Nasdaq is closed
- The CFTC already approved the bitcoin perp BTCPERP in May 2026
- Citadel Securities argues these products should stay under SEC oversight
- CME is suing the CFTC to overturn the perp approvals granted to Kalshi and Coinbase
A 60-product perp catalog targeting US equities
Kalshi has confirmed plans to file for regulatory approval of approximately 60 perpetual futures contracts tied to individual US stocks and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). According to a Wall Street Journal investigation published on September 10, 2026, the contracts would include Tesla, Apple, and Nvidia. If approved, they would become the first regulated single-stock perps in the United States, accessible around the clock, including nights and weekends.
The project is part of Kalshi’s broader expansion beyond traditional prediction markets. The firm has already diversified into gold, silver, and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil contracts. However, no definitive product list, leverage limits, margin requirements, or launch timeline has been publicly disclosed.
How perps work: a product born in crypto
Perpetual futures, or « perps, » allow traders to bet on the upside or downside of an asset, often with leverage, without an expiration date. Positions remain open indefinitely: counterparties exchange periodic funding payments (the funding rate) to keep the contract price anchored to the spot price of the underlying asset.
BitMEX introduced this structure in 2016. Since then, platforms such as Hyperliquid have generalized 24/7 perps on Bitcoin and hundreds of altcoins. In May 2026, Kalshi secured CFTC approval for a contract named BTCPERP, classified as a futures contract. The regulator warned, however, that this classification may not automatically extend to all asset classes.
In practice, a Tesla perp would let traders take a position on the automaker while the Nasdaq is closed, providing a real-time read on market sentiment hours or even days before the stock reopens.
Citadel Securities pushes back against Kalshi
On September 10, trading firm Citadel Securities sent a letter to the SEC and the CFTC opposing exclusive CFTC oversight of these new products. Citadel argues that a perp tied to a publicly listed company should remain under SEC supervision, given that the agency already regulates the underlying stocks, options, and related products.
The letter outlines three core concerns:
- Insider trading: an employee with material non-public information on a company’s earnings could theoretically trade the perp while the exchange is closed.
- Desynchronization: a company could release major news during a trading halt while the perp continues to move.
- Regulatory mismatch: rules on trading halts, order handling, and market access would not automatically transfer to a separate regime.
« Allowing products tied to publicly listed US companies to escape SEC oversight would create a parallel shadow market, disconnected from the safeguards of the cash market. »
Citadel Securities, letter to the SEC and CFTC, September 10, 2026
CFTC vs SEC: a jurisdictional showdown with CME in the wings
At the heart of the dispute lies the legal classification of a perp tied to a stock. Kalshi argues these contracts confer no ownership, no voting rights, and no dividends: they should therefore fall under CFTC jurisdiction as derivatives. The SEC counters that the direct link to a US-listed security justifies its own oversight.
The table below summarizes the positions of the main stakeholders:
| Actor | Position backed | Key argument |
|---|---|---|
| Kalshi | CFTC | No ownership, no vote, no dividend – a derivative |
| Citadel Securities | SEC | Unified oversight with stocks and options required |
| CME Group | CFTC | Perps qualify as swaps under Dodd-Frank |
| SEC | – | Link to a security means natural SEC jurisdiction |
| CFTC | – | Already approved BTCPERP in May 2026 |
In parallel, the CME Group sued the CFTC and its chair Michael Sellig in June 2026, seeking to overturn the perp approvals granted to Kalshi and Coinbase. CME argues that perps fall under the swaps category as defined by the Dodd-Frank Act (a 2010 federal law regulating derivatives). A federal court in Washington has yet to rule. A CFTC spokesperson called the action « absurd, » while Kalshi framed the dispute as fundamentally about competition.
A booming global perp market
According to CryptoQuant data cited by Reuters, global perp trading volume rose 29% in 2025 to reach $61.7 trillion. That figure primarily captures crypto derivatives, but it underscores strong trader appetite for expiration-free products operating continuously.
Kalshi’s bet is to transpose this crypto-proven mechanism to the most liquid US stocks. The success of the strategy hinges on regulators quickly settling the jurisdictional question, and on Wall Street’s willingness to accept a competitor operating outside traditional market hours.
Conclusion: a precedent with major implications
Kalshi’s project opens a major regulatory gray zone in the United States. If the CFTC validates stock-linked perps, Wall Street will have to contend with a 24/7 market functioning outside traditional oversight. If the SEC prevails, Kalshi will need to restructure its products or seek other jurisdictions, such as the Bermuda Monetary Authority, which already supervises some of its markets.
The court’s decision on the BTCPERP case could set a decisive precedent for the entire sector. Beyond Kalshi itself, the question challenges the very architecture of US financial supervision: can a market mechanism born in crypto be applied to listed equities without losing the existing safeguards? The regulators’ answer in the coming months will be closely watched across the industry.
Sources
This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice. Do your own research (DYOR) before making any decision.
